Author
Topic: Potential upgrade from 7D (Read 12784 times)

Hello everyone, recently I've been thinking about upgrading my 7D+15-85 to a 5DIII. The itch for upgrading has been nothing new, but recently I've found myself cringing at the images taken using the 7D+15-85 combo in low light when it is necessary to bump the ISO up to 3200/4000. I often times find myself wishing for a fast zoom lens/better high ISO performance when I'm taking pictures. Photography is a hobby for me, and I still hold a bit of doubt as to whether I should spend the money upgrading to a 5DIII since the 7D is an awesome camera, and the fact that I don't make money from photography.

I normally spend a lot of time looking up info and debating myself before I buy something, I spent a year "considering" before finally buying the 7D. The devil on my shoulder however, is pushing me to go for the 5DIII with a good lens. Thus for the past few weeks I've been browsing around and thinking about what focal lengths I would use more and which lenses I would most likely use. I've found two lenses that appeal to me a great deal (three lenses if I include the 24-70 f2.8LII).The Canon 16-35mm f2.8L II and Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC

I know these two lenses aren't in the same class as to warrant a comparison, but when using the 15-85, many a times I found myself shooting from 15-35mm and then from 70-85mm, with less pictures taken with the focal length in between. Thus I thought that I would probably enjoy the ultra-wide angle of the 16-35mm at the expense of the versatility of the 24-70mm. However, it is also hard giving up on the Vibration Compensation of the Tamron lens as it often times proves useful in situations with lower shutter speeds. The 24-70mm f2.8LII is an awesome lens with a not so awesome price tag, not to mention it doesn't have IS so I'm willing to ponder a bit more whether I would like one.

I also own a Canon 70-200mm f4L IS and a Voigtlander Ultron 40mm F2 SLIIN, so my short telephoto range is covered and the Voigtlander is a fun walk-around lens to use when I want to strain my eyes and squint my brains out when focusing. So...

What do you guys and gals think about these two lenses with the 5DIII, has anyone used either often as a walk-around lens? Should I just stick with the 7D like my shoulder angel suggests? Thanks for giving me your opinions, and also thanks for spending your time reading through this.

canon rumors FORUM

lady

It honestly depends. I think what you should do is order your lenses FIRST, then decide. You're using a really low quality lens. I hate my noise performance at F4 on the 17-40mm but the camera is a godsend when I'm using my 50mm @ f1.4.

Example:

If you have the money to do it, and you shoot a lot of low-light photography and not a lot of sport photography, then I honestly say go for it. Speaking as someone who is stubbornly refusing to part with her 7D and planning to add a 5D3 as a second camera, I honestly say if the 7D isn't doing what you want, upgrade. I would however suggest trying those lenses out first on your camera, because then you may decide you don't need to upgrade anymore!

The 16-35mm lens on the 5D3 creates fantastic pictures. Not sure about the Tamron as I am not a fan of tamron's quality.

rocketman

Last week I pulled the trigger on upgrading to a 5Dmk3. I sold my first DSLR (EOS 450).

My 7D (not back-up, but camera for different purposes) is excellent for daylight, BIF, sports and wildlife, but I wanted FF IQ for landscapes and a bit more low light capability.

My 70-200f4 IS USM suites me fine on both camera's. For BIF I will stick to the 7D with converter (and cropfactor), however I am discovering the AF system on the 5Dmk3. AI servo case 6 is very tempting.

I bought the 16-35 to cover the wide angle for the 5Dmk3 (landscapes).

As I cannot make up my mind (i.e. find enough cash) on a Canon / Tamron 24-70/105 f2.8 / f4, I just upgraded my 50mm 1.8 to a 1.4. I will stick to that for a couple of months.

I intend to keep my 15-85 because while travelling on familytrips abroad (in summer) I want to take just one camera. The big pack will be the 7D with 10-22, 15-85 and 70-200 and the small pack is the 7D with just the 15-85.

The 5Dmk3 will only travel on dedicated phototrips. (I'll be more focused on my gear instead of my family.)

It all sums up to: I love my new 5Dmk3 and 16-35, but I too refuse to part with my 7D and 15-85. I just wait for the Canon 24-70 2.8 to drop in price or to get IS and use my 50mm 1.4 and save some more money while waiting.

I've found two lenses that appeal to me a great deal (three lenses if I include the 24-70 f2.8LII).The Canon 16-35mm f2.8L II and Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC

I know these two lenses aren't in the same class as to warrant a comparison, but when using the 15-85, many a times I found myself shooting from 15-35mm and then from 70-85mm, with less pictures taken with the focal length in between. Thus I thought that I would probably enjoy the ultra-wide angle of the 16-35mm at the expense of the versatility of the 24-70mm. However, it is also hard giving up on the Vibration Compensation of the Tamron lens as it often times proves useful in situations with lower shutter speeds. The 24-70mm f2.8LII is an awesome lens with a not so awesome price tag, not to mention it doesn't have IS so I'm willing to ponder a bit more whether I would like one.

I also own a Canon 70-200mm f4L IS and a Voigtlander Ultron 40mm F2 SLIIN, so my short telephoto range is covered and the Voigtlander is a fun walk-around lens to use when I want to strain my eyes and squint my brains out when focusing. So...

What do you guys and gals think about these two lenses with the 5DIII, has anyone used either often as a walk-around lens? Should I just stick with the 7D like my shoulder angel suggests? Thanks for giving me your opinions, and also thanks for spending your time reading through this.

After much fighting (with myself), reading dozens of reviews, and breaking my head, a few months ago, I finally upgraded from 7D & 17-55 f/2.8 IS to 5D MK III & 24-70 f/2.8 L II ... so I can understand your predicament. For me the upgrade has been truly worth it and would easily recommend the 5D MK III upgrade to any 7D owner.Since you mostly shoot 15-35 on your 7D, a 24-70mm lens on a 5D MK III would perfectly fit in that category (15mm on 7D is equivalent to 24mm on a full frame like 5D/6D). I have the 16-35 L II and it is an amazing lens ... but I mostly use 24-55mm reach on my 5D MK III (which is the same FOV as 15-35 on a 7D ).Had the 24-70 L II till a couple of days ago (someone stole it), I must say that I did miss IS on 24-70 f/2.8 L II, so I ordered for a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC, should have it before the next weekend (actually I cannot afford to buy the 24-70 L II again ... and that coupled with my desire to have stabilization has led me to Tamron 24-70 VC).If you've got the budget for 5D MK III, go for it along with a 24-70 f/2.8 lens. If you plan on sticking with 7D the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a great lens that perfectly fits into your most used focal range (except for 15-16mm reach)... right now that lens is being sold for US$ 940 ... which I think is a very good deal.

canon rumors FORUM

When the light is bad, what aperture setting do you use? Do you need to go below the 3.5/5.6 of your 15-85? If so, try glass first. Like someone said earlier, if you have the dough, go for the 5D3. You can shoot at 12.8K ISO and get decent pictures.

when using the 15-85, many a times I found myself shooting from 15-35mm and then from 70-85mm, with less pictures taken with the focal length in between. Thus I thought that I would probably enjoy the ultra-wide angle of the 16-35mm at the expense of the versatility of the 24-70mm.

If I understand correctly, considering that you used the 15-35mm and 70-85mm ranges more on the 7D, then you are looking at 24-56mm and 112-136mm ranges on the 5DIII. So, I think you need a 24-XX lens more than a 16-35 on a FF.

I also own a Canon 70-200mm f4L IS and a Voigtlander Ultron 40mm F2 SLIIN, so my short telephoto range is covered and the Voigtlander is a fun walk-around lens to use when I want to strain my eyes and squint my brains out when focusing. So...

What do you guys and gals think about these two lenses with the 5DIII, has anyone used either often as a walk-around lens?

I often use the 70-200 f4 IS as my walk-around lens with the 5D3. Great results (as long as f4 isn't a problem for you) and not so heavy that I can't carry it by hand all afternoon.

sounds like you really don't want to spend the money to upgrade, but feel you would benefit from better iso performance etc, which is totally understandable. Before you make a switch rent a 17-55 2.8 for a week or two and see how you get along with that especially since you indicate the 7d is an "awesome" camera (which it is). the 17-55 is faster than your current lens so you could save a stop or two in iso depending on the situation, maybe also rent a good fast prime like a 50 1.4 and see how those work. And if that doesn't float your boat by all means buy a 5diii, although take a hard look at the 6d. Honestly unless you are going to make the most out of the 5diii AF system the 6d is by and large the same camera just costs a bit less.

The only issue I see is that when you considering the crop factor of 1.6 the 15-35 is 24mm to 56mm. And on a full frame camera, the 16-35 will actually be 16-35mm. So you might want to look at one in person to make sure that your desired focal length is what you expect. I'm not saying it will be TOO wide, but it might be.

as for the 70-85 range... that is 112mm to 136mm on a full frame... and I really don't think you have those covered in your lens options...

I've found two lenses that appeal to me a great deal (three lenses if I include the 24-70 f2.8LII).The Canon 16-35mm f2.8L II and Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC

I know these two lenses aren't in the same class as to warrant a comparison, but when using the 15-85, many a times I found myself shooting from 15-35mm and then from 70-85mm, with less pictures taken with the focal length in between. Thus I thought that I would probably enjoy the ultra-wide angle of the 16-35mm at the expense of the versatility of the 24-70mm. However, it is also hard giving up on the Vibration Compensation of the Tamron lens as it often times proves useful in situations with lower shutter speeds. The 24-70mm f2.8LII is an awesome lens with a not so awesome price tag, not to mention it doesn't have IS so I'm willing to ponder a bit more whether I would like one.

I also own a Canon 70-200mm f4L IS and a Voigtlander Ultron 40mm F2 SLIIN, so my short telephoto range is covered and the Voigtlander is a fun walk-around lens to use when I want to strain my eyes and squint my brains out when focusing. So...

What do you guys and gals think about these two lenses with the 5DIII, has anyone used either often as a walk-around lens? Should I just stick with the 7D like my shoulder angel suggests? Thanks for giving me your opinions, and also thanks for spending your time reading through this.

After much fighting (with myself), reading dozens of reviews, and breaking my head, a few months ago, I finally upgraded from 7D & 17-55 f/2.8 IS to 5D MK III & 24-70 f/2.8 L II ... so I can understand your predicament. For me the upgrade has been truly worth it and would easily recommend the 5D MK III upgrade to any 7D owner.Since you mostly shoot 15-35 on your 7D, a 24-70mm lens on a 5D MK III would perfectly fit in that category (15mm on 7D is equivalent to 24mm on a full frame like 5D/6D). I have the 16-35 L II and it is an amazing lens ... but I mostly use 24-55mm reach on my 5D MK III (which is the same FOV as 15-35 on a 7D ).Had the 24-70 L II till a couple of days ago (someone stole it), I must say that I did miss IS on 24-70 f/2.8 L II, so I ordered for a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC, should have it before the next weekend (actually I cannot afford to buy the 24-70 L II again ... and that coupled with my desire to have stabilization has led me to Tamron 24-70 VC).If you've got the budget for 5D MK III, go for it along with a 24-70 f/2.8 lens. If you plan on sticking with 7D the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a great lens that perfectly fits into your most used focal range (except for 15-16mm reach)... right now that lens is being sold for US$ 940 ... which I think is a very good deal.

I pay 45 bucks a year for about $5000 of coverage from accidental damage and theft from my insurance company. It is worth getting obviously for situations like yours.

The only issue I see is that when you considering the crop factor of 1.6 the 15-35 is 24mm to 56mm. And on a full frame camera, the 16-35 will actually be 16-35mm. So you might want to look at one in person to make sure that your desired focal length is what you expect. I'm not saying it will be TOO wide, but it might be.

^^ what he said. You said you find yourself shooting at the 15-35mm range on your 7d, so you would want the 16-35mm for a 5D, but that would actually be 24-26mm on full frame. You can save yourself some money and just get a 24-105mm to start off if you don't think you would need to get any wider than the 15-85mm you are using now.